By following certain steps and focusing on relevant courses of action, directors of startups can leverage the Safe Harbour provisions to increase their chances of navigating financial difficulties and achieving a better outcome for their company.

Liquidators accepting a new appointment will have to think carefully if there's a possibility of disclaiming onerous property as part of that appointment.

Victoria's Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the risk that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified, and the need for liquidators to be mindful where the company holds contaminated property.

Before embarking on any litigation, or continuing any litigation that is on foot at the time of the liquidator's appointment, a liquidator should carefully weigh up the benefits and risks of pursuing a particular course of action.

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. We discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. We provide guidance on ways to mitigate this risk.

Balancing risk – weighing up competing priorities

Over the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic upended many industries. While the construction industry has largely been able to operate throughout the pandemic, albeit with increased and ever-changing restrictions on jobsites, one consequence of these disruptions may be an increase in construction-related bankruptcy filings. Already in 2021, there have been over 70 construction-related bankruptcy filings across the country. For many property owners and real estate developers, these filings create a nightmare scenario where work may slow or even stop entirely.

Liquidators need to be mindful that a disclaimer of property may be challenged. The Supreme Court of Victoria underscored a key issue in establishing "prejudice" to creditors in a liquidation, holding that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.